I think is harder actually to develop PVE content using PVP as a foundation, since skills and abilities need to be either nerfed or buffed on the pvp side of things in order to bring balance content, and the PVE aspect suffers for it. Atleast that has been my experience having played WOW/Swotor/Rift.

I see PvP as going one of two ways: 1) It will be awful and rushed out because the gameplay is still essentially boring, and a lack of class balance will make class vs. class more important than player vs. player. 2) They will, miraculously, use their testing process for PvP to inform class balance and create actually engaging combat.

When a good PvP game is genuinely created, it tells you a lot about balance and engagement. It forces you to balance classes because that's the cornerstone of any PvP experience: player skills against one another on equal footing. It also helps the testers to identify where the challenge is. Does the combat feel strategically challenging? So it's much easier to create good PvE experiences using PvP as a foundation. However, if the PvP is a rushed out product, it will probably just suck.

This was the problem with PVP in DC Universe. Every class had a "DD stance" and a "Role stance." DD stance gave no inherent advantage, but the Role stances were Tank >> Controller >> Healer >> Tank. Problem was, Ice tanks owned all for the longest time, and an Ice DD could effectively tank while outputting ridiculous damage. Controllers got nerf, after nerf, after nerf. One type of healer specialized in single target healing, with one spell that put a healing circle on the ground (terrible in parties, since the other team could just leave the circle.) The other healer did all AOE healing based on his/her position, giving an obvious advantage in party PVP. That healer could also increase ability damage.

This was my only experience with PVP and it left a sour taste in my mouth. I know they're not all this bad, but it makes me weary of PVP in my favorite franchise.

____________________________

Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

I think is harder actually to develop PVE content using PVP as a foundation, since skills and abilities need to be either nerfed or buffed on the pvp side of things in order to bring balance content, and the PVE aspect suffers for it. Atleast that has been my experience having played WOW/Swotor/Rift.

This is the fear I hear most often surrounding this issue and I tend to fall into it as well. The 2 problems I have/see in games that try to combine PVE and PVP are these:

1) I'm not a big fan of PVP with auto-attack. This was the only thing I liked about the DC Universe PVP, every attack was manually input, whether a simple jab or an ability on the GCD.

2) Not being familiar at all with programming, I don't see how Vorpal Thrust can have the same level of effect on me (86 VIT stat with some gear thrown on and 1k HP) and some dragon with 1 million HP and an unknown DEF stat. One encounter is 1v1, and the other is a lot of players vs 1 mob. I don't understand how those 2 situations can really be balanced without one suffering.

____________________________

Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

I think is harder actually to develop PVE content using PVP as a foundation, since skills and abilities need to be either nerfed or buffed on the pvp side of things in order to bring balance content, and the PVE aspect suffers for it. Atleast that has been my experience having played WOW/Swotor/Rift.

It's actually much easier--the problem is that developers DON'T DO IT. As we see in XIV, the PvE is the foundation and then they build the PvP. The thing is, you will always be creating brand new PvE content. The primary PvP content is class balance, which should remain relatively stable.

Basically, most developers create classes A, B, and C, then balance them against monsters X, Y, and Z. Then they go back and forth between balancing A with B, and B with C, while trying to maintain some balance with X and Y and Z. They finally settle on something that kind of works, but it's a messy way to design. A, B and C always need to be in balance in PvP, and preferably in PvE as well... so you start with balancing them, and THEN you create X, Y, and Z in a way that MAKES A, B, and C balanced for PvE. When you try to balance classes against monsters, you're balancing them against a variable that is constantly going to change and won't line up with class vs. class balance, as someone just noted regarding the defense statistics in PvP vs. PvE.

It's really just so much easier and such a shame that most developers haven't figured it out.

IKickYoDog wrote:

Kachi wrote:

I see PvP as going one of two ways: 1) It will be awful and rushed out because the gameplay is still essentially boring, and a lack of class balance will make class vs. class more important than player vs. player. 2) They will, miraculously, use their testing process for PvP to inform class balance and create actually engaging combat.

When a good PvP game is genuinely created, it tells you a lot about balance and engagement. It forces you to balance classes because that's the cornerstone of any PvP experience: player skills against one another on equal footing. It also helps the testers to identify where the challenge is. Does the combat feel strategically challenging? So it's much easier to create good PvE experiences using PvP as a foundation. However, if the PvP is a rushed out product, it will probably just suck.

This was the problem with PVP in DC Universe. Every class had a "DD stance" and a "Role stance." DD stance gave no inherent advantage, but the Role stances were Tank >> Controller >> Healer >> Tank. Problem was, Ice tanks owned all for the longest time, and an Ice DD could effectively tank while outputting ridiculous damage. Controllers got nerf, after nerf, after nerf. One type of healer specialized in single target healing, with one spell that put a healing circle on the ground (terrible in parties, since the other team could just leave the circle.) The other healer did all AOE healing based on his/her position, giving an obvious advantage in party PVP. That healer could also increase ability damage.

This was my only experience with PVP and it left a sour taste in my mouth. I know they're not all this bad, but it makes me weary of PVP in my favorite franchise.

This sounds like a relatively simple problem of not individually balancing classes with appropriate buffs and nerfs, though was likely related to trying to balance PvE and PvP simultaneously. I don't know much about DC Universe. However, I think the idea of having a DD and support option for each class is very good in theory. It's too bad it sounds like the balance was so poor.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Would abilities make it harder for SE to properly balance PVP and PVE ? What i mean by that is, for example in WOW, warriors had a charge, Death Knights had a Pull etc etc, which where pretty nice tools in PVE for tanking or dealing with adds, now in PVP, they where broke, for a warrior could charge(It had a stun of like 1-2 secs) and mow you down before you could engage him. Also since some classes had hard CC for PVE (Example rogues) in pvp, they where at first broken, and the only solution Blizzard found around it, was to give everybody a stun, give everybody a CC trinket, give everybody dps.

Now my concern is that in FF classes have specific roles, and i would really hate to see them breaking apart from that mold, in order to bring balance to pvp.

Would abilities make it harder for SE to properly balance PVP and PVE ? What i mean by that is, for example in WOW, warriors had a charge, Death Knights had a Pull etc etc, which where pretty nice tools in PVE for tanking or dealing with adds, now in PVP, they where broke, for a warrior could charge(It had a stun of like 1-2 secs) and mow you down before you could engage him. Also since some classes had hard CC for PVE (Example rogues) in pvp, they where at first broken, and the only solution Blizzard found around it, was to give everybody a stun, give everybody a CC trinket, give everybody dps.

Now my concern is that in FF classes have specific roles, and i would really hate to see them breaking apart from that mold, in order to bring balance to pvp.

Yeah, they definitely make it harder. The more abilities you have the more difficult it is to balance, but it's identifying balance problems, not fixing them, that is the hard part (usually all you need to do is adjust a value). That just requires observing players and making the fixes when the need becomes apparent. The more abilities you have, the more difficult it is to balance them purely by design (still not impossible, just unlikely).

However, once player classes are balanced, designing monsters that are relatively balanced against all classes becomes much simpler. You can more easily determine how the average monster should be designed and deviate from there, rather than creating a spectrum of monsters and figuring out a class/party balance afterwards. A good monster is ultimately not very different from a good player.

For example, if classes have a pull or a stun that is powerful in PvP, designers can figure out how to balance those abilities; whether it's to make them weaker, give players tools against that particular ability, give other classes powerful skills, or even create new game elements that offset the power. An ability can ALWAYS be balanced, usually with ease. At that point, you can safely give monsters those same sets of skills and know that players will have some way to cope with them. If it's not overpowered in PvP, then it's not going to be overpowered in PvE (once you figure out what the average monster should be like). Unfortunately, it doesn't work the other way around.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Also, it is easier and often advisable to just have differences between classes in PvP and PvE (e.g., a few PvP-only abilities). I know some people don't like that on principle, but it's just a much easier way to balance things and makes a world of difference.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

Basically, most developers create classes A, B, and C, then balance them against monsters X, Y, and Z. Then they go back and forth between balancing A with B, and B with C, while trying to maintain some balance with X and Y and Z.

Clear example of 'doinitwrong'.

A, B, and C should be the mobs. X, Y and Z should be the classes. First you create the problem, then you create the means to solve it. I've probably said it a zillion times by now, but it doesn't make sense to do it any other way and it's the main reason why SE has lame encounters in their games.

____________________________

Rinsui wrote:

Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:

30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:

Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.

Er, that's exactly the opposite of what I was explaining for a reason. When you have PvP, the "problem" is OTHER PLAYERS. When you solve that problem, you can easily create "monster problems" with respect to the classes that you've balanced.

Moreover, even when you don't have PvP, designing monsters first is a backwards approach to balance. Classes will stay roughly the same and need to be balanced against one another. Monsters are always a variable. Look at it this way:

You can either create 1000 problems (monsters), and then try to create a dozen solutions (classes) that will fix them all more or less equally well. OR You can create a dozen solutions that work more or less equally well, and then create 1000 problems that are specifically designed to be handled by the solutions that you have.

Pretty easy to see why the latter option is easier and better, I think? If for example you were pulling out schematics for building projects with carpentry, machinery, and such, you wouldn't want to pick a bunch and then find that you couldn't have enough tools to follow through with them. You'd want to pick your projects based on the tools that you picked.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

I considered it; unfortunately players have a natural tendency in any PvP to create 1 vs 1 encounters. Moreover, if classes are not balanced, then the same party vs party imbalances will generally persist.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

I considered it; unfortunately players have a natural tendency in any PvP to create 1 vs 1 encounters. Moreover, if classes are not balanced, then the same party vs party imbalances will generally persist.

This is where the Class system comes into play.

The flexibility of the base "Classes" make it highly functional for single player vs Player encounters without damaging the Jobs = Roles concepts you desire. This is, in part, one of the reasons why I keep pushing against the idea of removing the class system all together. The Class system will likely become a PvP standard where the Jobs will primarily be used for PvE. The development paths can then be handled and balanced more or less on these grounds without harming one another.

But you're right. PvP Demands flexibility, and often does wind up in 1v1 circumstances. At least in Open World and specific Arena situations. However objective based combat often winds up being group vs group, so Job can find a function there in PvP as well for those who wish to stick to just playing a Job, rather than a class. But the Class system covers your concerns while still allowing more specificity and identity through the use of Jobs.

You can either create 1000 problems (monsters), and then try to create a dozen solutions (classes) that will fix them all more or less equally well. OR You can create a dozen solutions that work more or less equally well, and then create 1000 problems that are specifically designed to be handled by the solutions that you have.

Pretty easy to see why the latter option is easier and better, I think? If for example you were pulling out schematics for building projects with carpentry, machinery, and such, you wouldn't want to pick a bunch and then find that you couldn't have enough tools to follow through with them. You'd want to pick your projects based on the tools that you picked.

I still think the former is the better option. It's never really 1000 problems because the problem that needs to be overcome are mechanics. There may be differences in how they work, but they'll still be grouped together. Bomb Toss might be magic damage AoE and Whirl Claws might be physical damage AoE. Whirl of Rage is a borrowed mechanic with an added effect of stun instead of a completely different mechanic. So on....

In your example, the problem is being equipped with the right tools instead of what it should be; the functional necessity met by whatever you're creating. In the case of XIV, it would be a challenging fight. SE has been using the same classes and jobs for years so the tools they have are already well established.

____________________________

Rinsui wrote:

Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:

30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:

Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.

It's never really 1000 problems because the problem that needs to be overcome are mechanics. There may be differences in how they work, but they'll still be grouped together. Bomb Toss might be magic damage AoE and Whirl Claws might be physical damage AoE. Whirl of Rage is a borrowed mechanic with an added effect of stun instead of a completely different mechanic. So on....

The problems that need to be overcome are always mechanics, whether its monsters or classes. It's often an even bigger problem when you have a mob type that scales all the way to max level using the exact same abilities, as they often don't scale correctly. Then you have a monster that isn't even balanced across the level spectrum, let alone balanced against each class. Balance is ultimately an exercise of mathematics, and the numbers used often don't scale linearly.

If you never balance the classes apples to apples, then you will always have difficulty attaining balance vs. monsters (especially after you make attempts to balance the classes). The best way to balance classes apples to apples is through PvP refinement. In fact, a great deal of PvE features that are developed in primarily PvP games are do the balancing part very well, even though the content is more likely to suck.

We may just have to agree to disagree, but I have always found and seen it to be easier to balance the relatively static content first, and create the more dynamic content later. Unless you're designing monsters to be static, though in that case your opponents are probably going to be really boring as a result of your class adjustments. Edit: Reason being, players are already dynamic, since they learn. If your monsters are static, your players will probably figure them out too easily. See: Almost any MMO ever. Players effectively use the same strategy against 99% of the monsters because of that approach.

Oh, and lest I forget how equipment and updates cause greater variability in player classes.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.

If you never balance the classes apples to apples, then you will always have difficulty attaining balance vs. monsters (especially after you make attempts to balance the classes). The best way to balance classes apples to apples is through PvP refinement.

You're suggesting that balancing players against each other should balance them to content? I couldn't agree less.

A player's performance against another class in 1v1 PvP doesn't matter unless you're adjusting mobs with the exact same class abilities as players AND those mobs are only being fought solo. Keep in mind, we're talking about a group of players against a mob. PvP doesn't shed any light on what adjustments need to be made if a certain class is outperforming the rest.

I'm not sure how static or dynamic content relates to the subject we're discussing.

As far as future updates, that's the reason why I brought up the fact that SE has been using the same jobs and classes in it's games for years. When they announce new jobs for XIV no one is certain how they will work exactly, but their implementation is in line with what you'd expect based on previous games. This wouldn't be hard to account for especially since the mechanics are all fairly similar.

An ability does slashing, piercing or blunt damage or it deals physical damage with no type modifier. A spell does magic damage modified by a certain element or it does magic damage with no bonus. An ability or spell deals a flat amount of damage based on some other modifier such as the amount of health the mob has, charges which increase it's potency, other members using the same type of abilities or spells, ect. ect.

There are only so many mechanics like this that you can make and they can be accounted for even if they haven't been implemented yet.

____________________________

Rinsui wrote:

Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:

30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:

Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.

A player's performance against another class in 1v1 PvP doesn't matter unless you're adjusting mobs with the exact same class abilities as players AND those mobs are only being fought solo. Keep in mind, we're talking about a group of players against a mob. PvP doesn't shed any light on what adjustments need to be made if a certain class is outperforming the rest.

I'm not sure how static or dynamic content relates to the subject we're discussing.

It ABSOLUTELY matters, as I was illustrating. Ultimately enemy players are not different from monsters. Even a party of enemy players (group dynamic) can be balanced as a single monster encounter. You're usually just condensing the numbers into a single unit anyway. Your confusion seems to stem from the fact that you're used to seeing mobs that are designed the other way around. As a result, they only APPEAR fundamentally different from player units on the surface. They really are not. They are simply queens against pawns. The pawns still need to be in balance.

PvP not only displays which classes are going to underperform against the monsters you later design (again, it obviously doesn't work if you starrt with the monsters), but it helps to ensure that the gameplay is sufficiently engaging and challenging. Balance creates fun, but PvE balance is MUCH harder to obtain than PvP balance. When you determine what the approximate challenge of a human opponent provides, you can much more easily create monsters tuned more closely to that level of difficulty based on the principles of balance you identify.

That's what I was referring to by static/dynamic... it's not about content. It's about algorithms which stay mostly the same and algorithms that can change. Player algorithms and behaviors are relatively unpredictable. Monsters are entirely predictable because they are only what you design them to be. As in trying to understand and change any behavior, you start by attempting to control that which is variable. If you create the "intervention" first and then try to fit players to it, you will always be limited in the efficacy of your creation.

Quote:

There are only so many mechanics like this that you can make and they can be accounted for even if they haven't been implemented yet.

There are really an incredibly large amount of mechanics that can be implemented. It's only mitigated by the question of what makes narrative sense. You can create 100 different types of damage and 1000 status effects if you want to. But really, the question of what and how many mechanics there will be is entirely beside the point. Balancing is a quantitative practice, not a qualitative one. It doesn't matter how many qualities/mechanics there are, as they are all regulated by adjustable quantities. And when you design the PvE encounters first, it's easy to forget this and treat your mechanics like they must be all-or-nothing. PvP balancing provides the perfect opportunity to adjust those quantities as well as determine new qualities to flesh out a class.

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.